John Mearsheimer (b. 1947) is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and the most prominent exponent of “offensive realism” in contemporary international relations theory. His work on great power competition, published over decades, gained new relevance after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine—making him one of the most cited, debated, and contested scholars in the field.
Offensive Realism¶
The Core Argument¶
Mearsheimer’s theoretical contribution—developed most fully in “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” (2001)—argues that the international system compels great powers to maximize their relative power:
“The overriding goal of each state is to maximize its share of world power, which means gaining power at the expense of other states.”
This is “offensive” realism because states do not merely seek security (as “defensive” realists argue) but pursue regional hegemony whenever circumstances permit.
Key Assumptions¶
Mearsheimer builds on several premises:
- Anarchy: No world government exists to protect states
- Offensive military capability: All states possess some capacity to harm others
- Uncertainty: States can never be certain of others’ intentions
- Survival: States seek to maintain their sovereignty and territorial integrity
- Rationality: States are strategic actors that think about how to survive
From these assumptions, Mearsheimer derives a bleak conclusion: states are condemned to compete, and the system generates tragedy regardless of intentions.
Regional Hegemony¶
The ultimate goal of great powers is regional hegemony—dominance of their own region while preventing rivals from achieving similar dominance elsewhere:
- The United States achieved regional hegemony in the Western Hemisphere
- It then acted to prevent any Eurasian power from achieving equivalent dominance
- This explains American intervention in both World Wars and the Cold War
- China is now attempting what the US achieved: regional hegemony in Asia
The Stopping Power of Water¶
Mearsheimer argues that oceans prevent global hegemony:
- No state can project enough power across oceans to dominate distant regions
- The United States is safe because vast oceans separate it from potential rivals
- Regional hegemons can be thwarted by offshore balancers
- Global hegemony is impossible; regional hegemony is the maximum achievable
The Rise of China¶
The Coming Conflict¶
Mearsheimer has long predicted that China’s rise would generate intense security competition with the United States:
“China cannot rise peacefully… The United States will go to enormous lengths to prevent China from achieving regional hegemony.”
His logic follows from offensive realism: a powerful China will seek regional dominance, and the US will resist, just as Britain and America resisted German dominance of Europe.
Asian Dynamics¶
Mearsheimer predicts:
- China will build formidable military power
- Neighbors will balance against China (with American support)
- Crises over Taiwan, the South China Sea, and other flashpoints will intensify
- War is not inevitable but is a serious risk
Implications¶
If Mearsheimer is right:
- Economic interdependence will not prevent conflict
- Liberal institutions will not constrain Chinese behavior
- The future looks more like 1914 Europe than 1990s globalization
- American policymakers should prepare for long-term competition
NATO Expansion and Ukraine¶
The Argument¶
Mearsheimer has been the most prominent academic critic of NATO expansion, arguing since the 1990s that:
- Expanding NATO into Russia’s sphere of influence was a strategic blunder
- Russia would inevitably resist Western encroachment on its borders
- Ukraine, as a buffer state, should not be pulled into Western institutions
- Western policy provoked the very Russian aggression it claimed to prevent
This argument became globally prominent after Russia’s 2022 invasion.
The Logic¶
Mearsheimer’s analysis applies offensive realism to Russian behavior:
- Russia, like any great power, seeks to dominate its region
- NATO expansion threatens Russian security by moving Western military power toward Russian borders
- Ukraine’s potential NATO membership was an existential threat from Moscow’s perspective
- Russian aggression, while illegal and tragic, was predictable and in some sense provoked
The Controversy¶
This argument has generated intense debate:
Critics argue: - It blames the victim (Ukraine) and the West rather than the aggressor - It denies agency to Eastern European states seeking NATO membership - It ignores that Russia’s actions prove why NATO expansion was justified - It is essentially apologetics for Russian imperialism
Supporters argue: - Understanding causation is not the same as justification - Ignoring Russian security concerns was strategically foolish - The outcome (war in Europe) validates Mearsheimer’s warnings - Policy should be based on how states actually behave, not how we wish they would
Mearsheimer’s Response¶
Mearsheimer distinguishes explanation from justification:
“The question of who is morally responsible for the Ukraine crisis and the question of what caused it are separate questions.”
He maintains that the West bears primary responsibility for the crisis while acknowledging that Russia’s invasion is illegal and morally wrong.
Academic Career¶
Background¶
Mearsheimer’s career combined military experience with academic achievement:
- West Point graduate, served in the Air Force
- PhD from Cornell under Richard Rosecrance
- Professor at Chicago since 1982
- Numerous books and articles on security studies
Other Works¶
Beyond offensive realism, Mearsheimer has written on:
Conventional Deterrence (1983): Analyzed when conventional military deterrence succeeds or fails.
The Israel Lobby (2007, with Stephen Walt): Argued that the “Israel lobby” distorts American foreign policy—generating intense controversy.
The Great Delusion (2018): Critiqued liberal hegemony as American grand strategy, arguing it leads to endless wars and international backlash.
Critiques¶
Structural Determinism¶
Critics argue Mearsheimer:
- Overemphasizes structure and underemphasizes agency
- Treats states as billiard balls, ignoring domestic politics
- Cannot explain variation in state behavior
- Makes unfalsifiable predictions (competition is always explained by the theory)
The Liberal Critique¶
Liberal international relations scholars argue:
- Institutions can constrain state behavior
- Economic interdependence raises the costs of war
- Democratic states behave differently than autocracies
- The “tragedy” is not inevitable but results from bad choices
The Russia-Ukraine Critique¶
Specifically on Ukraine, critics argue Mearsheimer:
- Ignores Russian imperialism predating NATO expansion
- Denies legitimate Ukrainian aspirations for Western integration
- Treats spheres of influence as natural rights of great powers
- Essentially endorses great power domination of smaller states
Normative Concerns¶
Some worry that offensive realism:
- Legitimizes aggressive behavior as “rational”
- Counsels accommodation of authoritarianism
- Abandons smaller states to domination by neighbors
- Is self-fulfilling (treating conflict as inevitable makes it so)
Influence¶
Academic Impact¶
Mearsheimer is among the most cited scholars in international relations:
- “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” is a standard text
- His theoretical framework shapes debates about China’s rise
- His arguments appear in policy discussions worldwide
- Graduate students across the field engage with his work
Policy Relevance¶
His arguments influence real-world debates:
- China hawks cite his predictions about inevitable competition
- Restraint advocates cite his critiques of liberal hegemony
- NATO critics cite his warnings about expansion
- Realists across the spectrum engage with his framework
Public Intellectual¶
Mearsheimer has become a prominent public figure:
- His Ukraine lectures have millions of YouTube views
- He speaks to general audiences worldwide
- He appears in documentaries and podcasts
- He has become (somewhat uncomfortably) a celebrity in some circles critical of Western policy
Assessment¶
What He Gets Right¶
- Great power competition is a persistent feature of international relations
- States do respond to shifts in relative power
- Liberal optimism about the “end of history” proved premature
- NATO expansion did provoke Russian backlash (though whether it was wise remains contested)
What He May Get Wrong¶
- Conflict may not be as inevitable as he suggests
- Institutions and norms may matter more than he allows
- His policy recommendations (accommodate authoritarians) may be morally problematic
- Structural theories cannot capture everything important
The Enduring Value¶
Regardless of one’s views, Mearsheimer forces engagement with uncomfortable questions:
- What causes great power conflict?
- Can rising powers be accommodated?
- What are the limits of liberal international order?
- How should small states navigate great power competition?
Conclusion¶
John Mearsheimer represents the continuation of realist thought in an era that had hoped realism was obsolete. His predictions about China’s rise and NATO expansion have proven prescient enough to demand attention, even from those who reject his conclusions.
“The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” captures something essential: the international system creates pressures that good intentions alone cannot overcome. Whether this tragedy is truly inevitable—or whether human agency can construct alternatives—remains the central debate in international relations.
Mearsheimer’s work is not comfortable. It suggests limits to what liberal order can achieve and counsels policies that may require abandoning principles. But discomfort is not refutation. The questions he raises—about power, security, and the persistence of conflict—demand answers from anyone who thinks seriously about international politics.